(Part 2) Top products from r/Dallas

Jump to the top 20

We found 20 product mentions on r/Dallas. We ranked the 189 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/Dallas:

u/[deleted] · 8 pointsr/Dallas

It's a bit old now and really academic but "Dallas: The Making of a Modern City" by Patricia Hill is interesting. But I like real history that doesn't whitewash or sugarcoat it. From an Amazon description:

>From the ruthless deals of the Ewing clan on TV's "Dallas" to the impeccable customer service of Neiman-Marcus, doing business has long been the hallmark of Dallas. Beginning in the 1920s and 1930s, Dallas business leaders amassed unprecedented political power and civic influence, which remained largely unchallenged until the 1970s.

>In this innovative history, Patricia Evridge Hill explores the building of Dallas in the years before business interests rose to such prominence (1880 to 1940) and discovers that many groups contributed to the development of the modern city. In particular, she looks at the activities of organized labor, women's groups, racial minorities, Populist and socialist radicals, and progressive reformers—all of whom competed and compromised with local business leaders in the decades before the Great Depression.

>This research challenges the popular view that business interests have always run Dallas and offers a historically accurate picture of the city's development. The legacy of pluralism that Hill uncovers shows that Dallas can accommodate dissent and conflict as it moves toward a more inclusive public life. Dallas will be fascinating and important reading for all Texans, as well as for all students of urban development.

Another book is White Metropolis by Michael Phillips, who is a local historian and community college professor (I believe). From the description:

>From the nineteenth century until today, the power brokers of Dallas have always portrayed their city as a progressive, pro-business, racially harmonious community that has avoided the racial, ethnic, and class strife that roiled other Southern cities. But does this image of Dallas match the historical reality? In this book, Michael Phillips delves deeply into Dallas's racial and religious past and uncovers a complicated history of resistance, collaboration, and assimilation between the city's African American, Mexican American, and Jewish communities and its white power elite.

>Exploring more than 150 years of Dallas history, Phillips reveals how white business leaders created both a white racial identity and a Southwestern regional identity that excluded African Americans from power and required Mexican Americans and Jews to adopt Anglo-Saxon norms to achieve what limited positions of power they held. He also demonstrates how the concept of whiteness kept these groups from allying with each other, and with working- and middle-class whites, to build a greater power base and end elite control of the city. Comparing the Dallas racial experience with that of Houston and Atlanta, Phillips identifies how Dallas fits into regional patterns of race relations and illuminates the unique forces that have kept its racial history hidden until the publication of this book.

One of the reviews:

>This compelling book goes a long way toward explaining Dallas's dysfunctional political machine by exposing the history and nature of its engine. According to Phillips, political power in Dallas has always been partitioned on a sliding scale of "whiteness", with WASPs at the top, African Americans at the bottom, and everyone else (notably Jews and Hispanics) jockeying for position in between-- a practice that is still in effect today. The evidence for Phillips' argument is overwhelming and it will be interesting to see the reaction to this book (if any) by Dallas's power structure and its critics. Phillips spares no one, including Dallas's current civil rights activists, whom he accuses of taking only a superficial stab at real change and minority empowerment.

u/towerofcrows · 8 pointsr/Dallas

Oh, I see. I have to be more specific for you. Read this god damn book. Also, I'd like to point out that the only one making bloviated assumptions in this particular thread is you. Just to make it a little more equal, though, I'm going to assume you're really into a certain Home Improvement child actor.

*edited for username reference.

u/LagunaJaguar · 13 pointsr/Dallas

If anyone wants to read about the black soldiers of WWII, and the issues which came associated with their skin color, then I highly recommend the following Brothers in Arms book. It tells the story of the 761 Tank battalion through their battles at The Great Bulge, as well as other skirmishes.


u/caffpanda · 3 pointsr/Dallas

I think you'd enjoy the book Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat. It's written by an anthrozooligist who delves honestly into the very contradictory relationship we have with animals. He doesn't provide answers, so much as an in depth study into the place and role animals have in our lives and many preconceptions we simply take for granted.

u/Graceful20 · 4 pointsr/Dallas

Just looked into it. I found [THIS] (https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/review/0385410956/R2T32NAH2ZJIGQ?ie=UTF8) really helpful review through it that breaks down all the other good guides.

u/19Kilo · 2 pointsr/Dallas

Honestly, apply for everything. Shoot for those two and help desk. You can sort of get in the door with call center work, but let's call that a last ditch effort.

For learning about the field, Network Warrior is pretty much the bible of generalized network "stuff". It's fairly vendor independent and covers a lot of things that are off the beaten path (load balancers and such).

Cisco's CCENT book and the above one will supplement each other well.

I can't really speak to the server side these days. I've been over in Networking for a while...

u/whereismyrobot · 1 pointr/Dallas


There is also this book, which is a bit dated.
and this newer
I would look for dumpster diving boards. They usually have a lot of good info on the policies for many national chains. I have heard that Pier One throws away a lot of good stuff, but that was years ago.

u/notbob1959 · 7 pointsr/Dallas

>If you know how to torrent, (or, y'know, want to spend insane amount of money to buy), I'd also recommend Pimsleur audio lessons.

They don't seem to be that expensive. See here, here and here. Also it looks like the Dallas Public Library has them available to check out.

u/redbeard0x0a · 2 pointsr/Dallas

Kind of like how most people technically commit ~3 Felonies a Day just going about their daily life.

u/robbysalz · 0 pointsr/Dallas

And actually, NO, I'm going to completely approve this.

Dallas needs more density and less parking surface lots. Areas with balanced density are areas with focused economic/business/life activity.

Read a book, bro

  • High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup

  • Walkable City by Jeff Speck

    You haven't answered the question of whether or not the DHA has addressed your issues. What's your motive for wanting to deny requests? What other issues are you envisioning? How can they be addressed?
u/jswilson64 · 3 pointsr/Dallas

Available maps? How about a book full of 'em:

This has pretty much every public road in Texas on it (and some private roads as well), from Interstate to rural one-lane dirt roads.

u/jeremysbrain · 5 pointsr/Dallas

Lost Dallas

Edit: Although, not a non-fiction book, North Dallas Forty It was written by a former Dallas Cowboy and gives insight into the NFL at the time.

u/turbothesnail · 2 pointsr/Dallas

You might like this book: http://www.amazon.com/Fields-Blood-Religion-History-Violence/dp/0307957047 From the synopsis: While many historians have looked at violence in connection with particular religious manifestations (jihad in Islam or Christianity’s Crusades), Armstrong looks at each faith—not only Christianity and Islam, but also Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Daoism, and Judaism—in its totality over time. As she describes, each arose in an agrarian society with plenty powerful landowners brutalizing peasants while also warring among themselves over land, then the only real source of wealth. In this world, religion was not the discrete and personal matter it would become for us but rather something that permeated all aspects of society. And so it was that agrarian aggression, and the warrior ethos it begot, became bound up with observances of the sacred.

In each tradition, however, a counterbalance to the warrior code also developed. Around sages, prophets, and mystics there grew up communities protesting the injustice and bloodshed endemic to agrarian society, the violence to which religion had become heir. And so by the time the great confessional faiths came of age, all understood themselves as ultimately devoted to peace, equality, and reconciliation, whatever the acts of violence perpetrated in their name.

Industrialization and modernity have ushered in an epoch of spectacular and unexampled violence, although, as Armstrong explains, relatively little of it can be ascribed directly to religion. Nevertheless, she shows us how and in what measure religions, in their relative maturity, came to absorb modern belligerence—and what hope there might be for peace among believers of different creeds in our time.

u/sertorius42 · 10 pointsr/Dallas

Have you read any of the state's declarations of secession? Here's excerpts from Georgia's:

Opening lines: "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

It literally cites the growth of a political party committed to abolition of slavery as the main reason to break away from the Union: "The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation."

The big problem, according to Georgia, is that the North has become increasingly anti-slavery. They also cite the argument (a straw man, given how racist most everyone was in 1861) that abolitionists favor racial equality in addition to abolition. "The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees it its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization."

"Slave" or "slavery" appear 35 times in the document. "Right" appears only 7. "Nullification" appears 0. I'd be interested to hear any historians' opinions you can offer on the Nullification Crisis, which occurred in Andrew Jackson's presidency, was the main cause for a war 30 years later. I studied history in undergrad and took a Civil War history course. Almost every historian we read, especially anyone writing after 1930, cited slavery as the primary cause for the war. I would recommend anyone curious about what individual soldiers felt to check out Manning's What This Cruel War Was Over, which combs through hundreds of primary source letters, memoirs, etc. from soldiers and officers from both sides. Amazon link here.